Skip to content

Make indent again #344

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 5, 2020
Merged

Make indent again #344

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 5, 2020

Conversation

tiran
Copy link
Member

@tiran tiran commented Jun 5, 2020

Signed-off-by: Christian Heimes cheimes@redhat.com

@tiran
Make indent again
b0eb397 
Signed-off-by: Christian Heimes <cheimes@redhat.com>
@tiran tiran added this to the 3.3 milestone Jun 5, 2020
@tiran
Copy link
Member Author

tiran commented Jun 5, 2020

We need a test for C indention.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Merging #344 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #344      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   70.47%   70.45%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          50       50              
  Lines        4792     4790       -2     
  Branches      802      802              
==========================================
- Hits         3377     3375       -2     
  Misses       1071     1071              
  Partials      344      344
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
Modules/functions.c 56.47% <0.00%> (ø)
Modules/constants.c 53.50% <100.00%> (-0.81%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 723b509...b0eb397. Read the comment docs.

encukou
encukou approved these changes Jun 5, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@encukou encukou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.
I wouldn't label this "correctness" though – that should be for error handling, undefined behavior, leaks, etc. Maybe add a "style" label for formatting issues.

@tiran tiran removed the correctness label Jun 5, 2020
@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Jun 5, 2020

The Travis job is consistently failing in coverage with sqlite3.OperationalError. Do you know how to fix this?
Myself, I'd be OK with removing the coverage report. It is very noisy; I don't really look at it.

@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Jun 5, 2020

Anyway, I checked that the actual tests pass.

@encukou encukou merged commit 450b2f3 into python-ldap:master Jun 5, 2020
@tiran
Copy link
Member Author

tiran commented Jun 5, 2020

The Travis job is consistently failing in coverage with sqlite3.OperationalError. Do you know how to fix this?
Myself, I'd be OK with removing the coverage report. It is very noisy; I don't really look at it.

Yes, coverage < 5.0 is the fix for the SQLite operation error.

@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Jun 5, 2020

OK, I'll add it again.

@tiran
Copy link
Member Author

tiran commented Jun 5, 2020

Apparently only some builders are affected. Most test runs today did not fail.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@encukou encukou encukou approved these changes

Assignees

@encukou encukou

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
3.3
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@tiran @encukou